Groundwater Management Principles and Strategies to Monitor, Analyze and Minimize Impacts to Drinking Water Wells: A Framework for State Action to Support Drought Resilient Communities

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 15th, 2021

This framework was developed in response to support drinking water access for groundwater-dependent communities.

This framework was developed in response to support drinking water access for groundwater-dependent communities.

Groundwater Quality in the Sacramento Metropolitan Shallow Aquifer, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | May 2nd, 2019

The Sacramento metropolitan (SacMetro) study unit covers approximately 3,250 square kilometers of the Central Valley along the eastern edge of the northern and southern e

The Sacramento metropolitan (SacMetro) study unit covers approximately 3,250 square kilometers of the Central Valley along the eastern edge of the northern and southern ends of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys, respectively. Groundwater withdrawals supply a significant portion of the water-resource needs of the region. In the southern portion of the study unit, groundwater accounts for nearly 90 percent of water demand in the area (South Area Water Council, 2011).  Groundwater sampled in the SacMetro study unit comes from alluvial aquifers primarily composed of sediments derived from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. Recharge to the groundwater system is primarily from the streams draining the Sierra Nevada, and from precipitation and infiltration of applied irrigation water (California Department of Water Resources, 2003). The public-supply aquifer system assessments of this area in 2005 found elevated concentrations of inorganic constituents including arsenic, iron, and manganese as well as of solvents in some wells (Bennett and others, 2010; 2011).  This study was designed to provide a statistically representative assessment of the quality of groundwater resources used for domestic drinking water in the SacMetro study unit. A complete listing of what was measured, including the sampling results, are presented in Bennett and others, 2019. A total of 49 wells were sampled between July 2017 and November 2017 (Bennett and others, 2019). The wells in the study were 32–160 meters deep, and water levels were 1–62 meters below land surface. 

Groundwater Quality in the San Fernando–San Gabriel Groundwater Basins, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | March 31st, 2012

Groundwater Sustainability Assessments: A Review of the Department of Water Resources’ Determinations on Groundwater Sustainability Plans in Critically Overdrafted Basins

Groundwater Leadership Forum (GLF) | August 31st, 2022

Of the 46 GSPs submitted in January 2020, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) determined eight GSPs to be adequate and 34 GSPs to be incomplete. In this paper we eval

Of the 46 GSPs submitted in January 2020, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) determined eight GSPs to be adequate and 34 GSPs to be incomplete. In this paper we evaluate to what extent DWR’s determinations provide oversight on the key issues of drinking water, disadvantaged communities, the environment, stakeholder involvement,and climate change. We summarize the corrective actions that DWR is recommending or requiring, as well as compare DWR’s determinations to the assessment of 31 GSPs that we conducted in 2020. We also reviewed the 11 comment letters submitted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 25 comment letters submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and seven comment letters submitted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to compare deficiencies identified in GSPs across agencies.

Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater

Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater quality is degraded by constituents that occur naturally (e.g., arsenic). In many urban and rural areas, groundwater quality degradation has resulted from a wide range of human (anthropogenic) activities. Groundwater remediation is necessary to improve the quality of degraded groundwater for beneficial use. Drinking water supply is the beneficial use that typically requires remediation when groundwater quality is degraded. Contaminants in groundwater can come from a many sources, naturally occurring and anthropogenic. Examples of naturally occurring contaminants include heavy metals and radioactive constituents, as well as high concentrations of various salts from specific geologic formations or conditions. Climate change that results in altered precipitation, snowfall patterns, and rising sea levels may exacerbate salt water intrusion and flooding of low-lying infrastructure and urban facilities. These phenomena will add new challenges to protection of groundwater from contamination. In addition, groundwater can be contaminated by anthropogenic sources with organic, inorganic, and radioactive constituents from point and non-point sources. These anthropogenic sources include industrial sites, mining operations, leaking fuel tanks and pipelines, manufactured gas plants, landfills, impoundments, dairies, septic systems, and urban and agricultural activities. The contaminant having the most widespread and adverse impact on drinking water wells is arsenic, followed by nitrates, naturally occurring radioactivity, industrial/commercial solvents, and pesticides. Groundwater remediation removes constituents, hereafter called contaminants, which affect beneficial use of groundwater. Groundwater remediation systems can employ passive or active methods to remove contaminants. Passive groundwater remediation allows contaminants to degrade biologically or chemically or disperse in situ over time. Active groundwater remediation involves either treating contaminated groundwater while it is still in the aquifer (in situ) or extracting contaminated groundwater from the aquifer and treating it outside of the aquifer (ex situ). Active in situ methods generally involve injecting chemicals into the contaminant plume to obtain a chemical or biological removal of the contaminant. Ex situ methods for treating contaminated groundwater can involve physical, chemical, and/or biological processes.

Guide for Developing Onsite Water Systems to Support Regional Water Resilience

Pacific Institute | January 26th, 2023

Across the United States, urban communities face growing water challenges, from water scarcity to flooding, pollution, aging water infrastructure, and more. These challen

Across the United States, urban communities face growing water challenges, from water scarcity to flooding, pollution, aging water infrastructure, and more. These challenges present risks, but also an opportunity to rethink how we manage water, including adopting circular approaches in new buildings that reduce their water footprint and improve urban water resilience. Onsite water systems, for example, collect, treat, and reuse water from onsite sources, including wastewater, rainwater, and stormwater, for non-potable water uses like toilet flushing, outdoor irrigation, and cooling. Onsite water systems have the potential to provide multiple benefits for a site, water and wastewater systems, ecosystems, and communities. They can, for example, help companies mitigate water- related risks, like water shortages that threaten to disrupt business operations, and support corporate water stewardship goals. For communities, onsite water systems can enhance water supply reliability, improve water quality, reduce localized flooding, and increase urban green space. The realization and magnitude of benefits will vary with the type of system, scale of adoption, and other context-specific factors. This guide helps site developers consider how onsite water systems can be planned, designed, and operated to provide multiple benefits, and contribute to planning and designing onsite water systems that advance water resilience, support equity, support the environment, and protect public health at the site, water system, and community scales. For each of these outcomes, the guide provides sample questions to consider, stakeholders to engage, resources to examine, and analyses to perform.

Guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water: the role of scientific uncertainty, risk assessment decisions, and social factors

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (Springer) | January 8th, 2019

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. Ther

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. There are currently no federal PFAS drinking water standards despite widespread drinking water contamination, ubiquitous population-level exposure, and toxicological and epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects. Absent federal PFAS standards, multiple U.S. states have developed their own healthbased water guideline levels to guide decisions about contaminated site cleanup and drinking water surveillance and treatment. We examined perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) water guideline levels developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies to protect people drinking the water, and summarized how and why these levels differ. We referenced documents and tables released in June 2018 by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) to identify states that have drinking water and groundwater guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS that differ from EPA’s health advisories (HAs). We also gathered assessment documents from state websites and contacted state environmental and health agencies to identify and confirm current guidelines. Seven states have developed their own water guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS ranging from 13 to 1000 ng/L, compared to EPA’s HA of 70 ng/L for both compounds individually or combined. We find that the development of PFAS guideline levels via exposure and hazard assessment decisions is influenced by multiple scientific, technical, and social factors, including managing scientific uncertainty, technical decisions and capacity, and social, political, and economic influences from involved stakeholders. Assessments by multiple states and academic scientists suggest that EPA’s HA is not sufficiently protective. The ability of states to develop their own guideline levels and standards provides diverse risk assessment approaches as models for other state and federal regulators, while a sufficiently protective, scientifically sound, and enforceable federal standard would provide more consistent protection.

Hexavalent Chromium Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | May 4th, 2023

The Division of Drinking Water (DDW) of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is responsible for adopting drinking water standards. Primary drinking

The Division of Drinking Water (DDW) of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is responsible for adopting drinking water standards. Primary drinking water standards, as defined in section 116275 of the California Safe Drinking Water Act (Health & Safety Code (HSC), div. 104, pt. 12, ch. 4, section 116270 et seq.), must be set in accordance with the requirements of HSC 116365. The purpose of the proposed regulation addressed in this Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) is to adopt a primary drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium in drinking water consisting of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and pertinent monitoring and reporting requirements. Consistent with title 1 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2003(a), the economic impact method used for the assessment was the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

High organofluorine concentrations in municipal wastewater affect downstream drinking water supplies for millions of Americans

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | January 6th, 2025

Human Costs of Nitrate-contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley

Pacific Institute | March 1st, 2011

While most Californians take for granted that safe water is readily available at the turn of a tap, a growing number of communities, primarily in the San Joaquin Valley a

While most Californians take for granted that safe water is readily available at the turn of a tap, a growing number of communities, primarily in the San Joaquin Valley and other agricultural areas of the state, face very real impacts from nitrate contamination of the drinking water sources serving their homes and schools. New research led by the Pacific Institute, The Human Costs of Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley, finds that nitrate contamination of groundwater has wide-reaching effects on California’s health, economic vitality, and environmental well being, disproportionately affecting low-income households and Spanish-speaking residents. The analysis brings a stark reality check to the fore as the Central Valley Water Board considers a new regulatory program for irrigated lands, the primary source of nitrate contamination in the San Joaquin Valley. There have never been any regulatory requirements on irrigated agriculture to protect groundwater from fertilizers, which are the primary source of nitrate in the valley. Nitrate levels have increased dramatically in drinking water supplies over the last few decades. The new study, The Human Costs of Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley, a collaboration of the Pacific Institute, Community Water Center, Clean Water Fund, and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, focuses on the household costs of avoiding nitrate-contaminated drinking water connected to community water systems and the costs to these systems of removing or avoiding nitrates, and it points to key policies and further research needed to better understand and resolve this entrenched challenge. The eight-county San Joaquin Valley has some of the most contaminated aquifers in the nation: 92 drinking water systems in the San Joaquin Valley had a well with nitrate levels above the legal limit from 2005-2008, potentially affecting the water quality of approximately 1.3 million residents. In addition to public water systems, the State Water Board sampled 181 domestic wells in Tulare County in 2006 and found that 40% of those tested had nitrate levels above the legal limit.